Monday, April 26, 2010

"Obama - Stop Pressuring Israel" was the rallying cry of the day, as over 2000 supporters of Israel gathered in front of the Israeli Consulate in New York City on Sunday afternoon, April 25th to express their views on the current strain in relations between the United States and Israel. Organizers of the rally had expected thousands more to attend but the inclement weather kept many away.

The rally was sponsored and organized by the Jewish Action Alliance, an pro-Israel activist organization that is renowned for championing issues of Jewish security. Beth Gilinsky, the spokesperson and chief strategist of the Jewish Action Alliance said, "We are outraged that President Obama is scapegoating Israel and wants to expel Jews from their homes in Jerusalem. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton display more anger about a Jewish family building a home in Jerusalem than Iran building a nuclear bomb." Expressing the sentiments of those in attendance at the rally, she said, "Vast segments of the Jewish community will not tolerate the President's continuing attacks on Israel. Grassroots Jewry will not be silent."

Noticeably absent from the lengthy roster of organizations endorsing this rally were the major American establishment Jewish organizations such as the World Jewish Congress, the ADL of B'nai Brith, the American Jewish Congress and the United Jewish Appeal. It has been suggested that these liberal Jewish organizations are supportive of President Obama's agenda in the Middle East and don't want to damage their relations with the current administration. Amongst the plethora of organizations endorsing and participating in the rally were, Stand With Us, a college campus activist organization that spotlights hate speech against Israel, Christians and Jews United for Israel, Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, Artists 4 Israel, Z Street, The Jerusalem Reclamation Project, The Center For Defense of Democracies, the AISH Center, AMCHA; Coalition for Jewish Concerns, The Jewish Political Education Foundation and the Endowment for Middle East Truth.

Radio talk show host Steve Malzberg and columnist Rabbi Aryeh Spero served as the masters of ceremony as they introduced a litany of speakers representing a broad spectrum of both Jewish and non-Jewish support for Israel. Rabbi Yaakov Spivak of Monsey, NY, a longtime Jewish activist, radio talk show host and a Daily News columnist intoned, "President Obama, we're here today to tell you something. In Warsaw, they told Jews where we could build, in Lodz they told Jews where we could build, in Paris they told Jews where we could build. You will never tell us where to build in Jerusalem. We are home and Israel is our country. You are not our landlord and we are neither a vassal state nor a banana republic. Our mandate to be here today is none other than our holy Tanach, our bible which says, 'For the sake of Zion I will not be silent and for the sake of Jerusalem I will not be quiet."

"The Jewish people are G-d's chosen people" said Rev. Michael Faulkner, an African American minister representing the New Horizon Church. "I remind those in the Obama administration that those who bless the Jewish people will be blessed and those who curse the Jewish people will be cursed. Israel is the only stable, democratic ally in the Middle East and this relationship must be preserved and protected. The strength of the land of Israel and the Jewish people lies with their G-d and I call upon all Jews to return to the mandate of the Almighty G-d of Israel and His holy Torah" he said

Holding aloft signs saying, "Jerusalem: Israel's United and Eternal Capitol", "Hillary Clinton: Pressure Iran, Not Israel", "Obama: Stand Up for America, Stop Bowing to Saudi Kings!" and "Obama: Jews Will Not Be Silent", the rally participants passionately expressed their anger at the shift in US foreign policy as it pertains to Israel. Jackie Donney, 55, a Christian supporter of Israel who traveled from Newton, Pennsylvania to attend the rally said, "Look, we all know the background of Barack Obama. He is a disciple of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, one of the greatest haters of Israel and America. I think it is downright sinful that Obama has placed such tremendous pressure on Israel to make major territorial concessions in the name of a false peace. The Palestinian government is an Iranian proxy and such is bent on the destruction of Israel and the Western world. Just look what happened when Israel forcibly evicted Jews from Gush Katif. It didn't bring peace and now the US is demanding that Israel relinquish parts of Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria. I say, 'Never, Never, Never'".

Another rally attendee, Rabbi Joseph Rosenbluh of the Young Israel of Vandeveer Park in Brooklyn said, "In our Tehillim (the Book of Psalms), we learn that our ultimate salvation lies with our Almighty G-d. It is up to all Jews to ferociously cleave to Hashem (G-d), to walk in His ways and to follow His commandments. In every generation we find that there is no shortage of Jew haters and other miscreants who seek our destruction. There is a new Pharoah in town (Obama) who does not know Joseph (the Jewish people) and we comprehend from our history that G-d will deal with our enemies if only we acknowledge His majesty and glory."

A formidable contingent of Hindu and Sikh supporters of Israel was also present at the rally. "We understand all to well that a policy of appeasement towards Islamic radicalism will never bring peace to Israel or the civilized world, declared Satya Dosapati of the Hindu Human Rights Watch. "As Hindus, we have been massacred by Muslims for thousands of years. If President Obama really believes that isolating and demonizing Israel and publicly humiliating Israel's prime minister is not emboldening our Islamic enemies, then something is really wrong. Israel is a peace seeking nation and we unequivocally support their right to their homeland. The world must realize that if Israel falls then the entire world will come under the domination of a blood thirsty Islamic caliphate", he continued.

Meir Rosenblatt, of Passaic, New Jersey said, "At the most recent AIPAC convention, Secretary Clinton said that Israel must relinquish Judea and Samaria in order to maintain both a democratic and Jewish state. It is clear that Israel is sitting on a demographic time bomb that is all too real. 20 years ago there were only two Arab members of Knesset and now there are 10. The Arab birthrate is skyrocketing while the Jewish birthrate is not. There is no educated Jew that can honestly say we weren't warned that this would happen. Rabbi Meir Kahane, of blessed memory spoke of this back in the late 1970s and everyone called him a racist and a fascist because they didn't want to hear the painful truth. Now we have boxed ourselves in a corner because we didn't listen to his prescient message."

Helen Freedman of the Americans for a Safe Israel said, "There is no way to establish peace with those who call for your destruction on a daily basis. That is exactly what the Palestinian propaganda campaign is all about. Lies, half-truths and distortions. AFSI is promoting the idea of "Shalom" (peace) through the concept of "Shalem" (a whole Israel). There can only be peace through strength and security. When the Arabs realized that they could not prevail against Israel militarily, they embarked on a course of diplomatic destruction and we are here to speak truth to the canards that they espouse."

Other speakers included Joan Peters, author of the critically acclaimed book, "Of Time Immemorial", Mort Klein of the Zionist Organization of America, Dr. Herbert London of The Hudson Institute, New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind who represents the 48th assembly district in Brooklyn and a stalwart Jewish activist and supporter of Israel, radio talk show host Curtis Sliwa and founder of the Guardian Angels, Faith McDonnell of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, Joy Brighton of Stop Shariah Now, Rabbi David Algaze of the World Committee for the Land of Israel, Tamar Edelstein of Crown Heights Women, Bhupinder Bhurji of the Naamdari Sikh Foundation, Lori Lowenthal Marcus of Z Street, State Senator Reuben Diaz, Susan Cohen of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Mallory Danaher of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Narain Katarian of the Hindu Human Rights Watch.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

What bravery! Let's pray for her protection ... From FoxNews via The New York Post (emphasis added):

Brave 'Arab Idol' Finalist Blasts Clerics on Popular Show

A burqa-clad contestant on the Arabic version of "American Idol" landed in the finals after bravely blasting hard-line Muslim clerics on live television, sparking outrage among religious conservatives in the Middle East.

Unlike the wildly popular Fox show, contestants in the Middle Eastern version recite traditional and original poetry rather than sing.

While most regale the audience with odes to the beauty of Bedouin life and glory of their rulers, Hissa Hilal stunned audiences last week by attacking Muslim religious leaders as "vicious in voice, barbaric, angry and blind," and guilty of "preying like a wolf" on people seeking peace.

She specifically blasted fatwas -- declarations by imams that often incite violence -- as a side of the extremism that is "creeping into our society."

"I have seen the evil in the eyes of fatwas, at a time when the permitted is being twisted into the forbidden," Hilal recited, speaking with only a hint of her eyes visible through her black veil.

Naturally, her verse has inspired numerous death threats on Islamic militant Web sites.
But her brave words clearly tapped a nerve, as she was wildly cheered by the audience and voted into the competition's final round.

"My poetry has always been provocative," said Hilal, a housewife and mother of four from Saudi Arabia. "It's a way to express myself and give voice to Arab women, silenced by those who have hijacked our culture and our religion."

Her poem was specifically seen as a direct assault on a prominent Saudi cleric who issued a fatwa against those who call for the mingling of men and women. More broadly, Hilal was also seen as attacking all the hard-line religious leaders who have widespread influence throughout the Middle East.

"Killing a human being is so easy for them, it is always an option," she said.

Hilal said she is concerned by the threats, but "not enough to send me into hiding."

She worries more whether her newfound fame might turn her life upside-down -- facing a fate like that of "Britain's Got Talent" songbird Susan Boyle, who melted down under the spotlight.

"I worry how I will be perceived after the show is over, when judgment is passed and people begin to talk about my performance and ideas," she said. "I worry the lights of fame will affect my simple and quiet existence."

Poetry is hugely popular in Middle Eastern countries, with prominent poets rising to rock-star levels of fame.

On the show, which is called "The Million's Poet" and is broadcast from Abu Dhabi across the entire region, contestants are rated by their voice, style of recitation and the subject matter.

The judges gave Hilal top marks for her impassioned performance and tackling a controversial topic. Their opinions, coupled with voting from people in the audience and through text messages by viewers, landed her in the final round.

"Hissa Hilal is a courageous poet," said judge Sultan al-Amimi, who manages Abu Dhabi's Poetry Academy. "She expressed her opinion against the kind of fatwas that affect people's lives and raised an alarm against these ad hoc fatwas coming from certain scholars who are inciting extremism."

The recent criticism of Geert Wilders’ views on Islam by the leading lights of the conservative movement has created much indignation and surprise in certain quarters.

If conservative analysts with strong national security credentials couldn’t be convinced of Islam’s threat, getting the point across to the centrist politicians who define and execute policy will indeed be even tougher.

In a particularly striking criticism of Wilders, conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer asserts that “What he [Geert Wilders] says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism. Islamism is an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam]. The untruth of that is obvious.”

Without commenting on the merits of Dr. Krauthammer’s critique, it is pertinent to note that it is his opinion. This is true of Geert Wilder’s reasoned views on Islam as well. After all, both have not quoted any scientific study to back their assertions.

If Islam is a threat as some claim, what would it take to persuade that certain fundamental attributes of Islam enshrine it a violent ideology of conquest?

The key to settling what Islam stands for is to let science, not opinion, dictate the debate. This is reality crystallized by an analogy:

There was a time when a male lion was seen as an embodiment of a great and dominant hunter of a pride. This perception reflected the majority of opinions at a certain time. However, various studies conducted in ensuing years told a different story: that female lions were the real hunters of a pride. That is, statistics of female lions hunting for their pride dominated the overall hunting pattern of a pride. These statistics put to rest the specific question of who hunted the most in a pride. In fact, these statistics form the definitive scientific basis of these studies.

More than a few Muslims have claimed that they engage in jihad (a religious war waged to advance the cause of Islam at the expense of unbelievers) because Islamic scriptures command them to do so.

Even nations representing Muslim communities—Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran—have taken to sponsoring jihad worldwide, on the basis of the scriptures.

There are widely varying opinions on the root cause of this—the dominant one is that the relevant Islamic scriptures have been misinterpreted. As with the discussion of the lions, a corresponding scientific query would be to find out the extent or the statistics of dislike of unbelievers and their conquest in the Islamic doctrines.

Recently, Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam has carried out a groundbreaking statistical analysis of Islamic doctrines.

I summarize his studies by noting that about sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. Moreover, about seventy five percent of Muhammad’s biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers.

While there might be some subjectivity to the above analysis, the overwhelming thrust of the inferences should be noted.

This overall thrust exposes the sheer absurdity of excusing the Koran-inspired terror on the so-called “selective interpretation” of the Muslim holy book or its “verses being taken out of context.”

The burden of scientific or statistical evidence suggests that Islam is an intolerant religion that drives its followers toward a violent conquest of unbelievers.

If such is the thrust of the Islamic doctrines, their propagation would lead to increased violence directed at non-Muslims. Indeed, rise in Muslim extremism of the past decades is directly correlated with hundreds of billions of dollars spent by government-linked Saudi charities to “propagate” Islam worldwide.

America’s policy approach to the Muslim world has been clouded by misrepresentations of Islam’s character. For instance, in one of the most important foreign policy initiatives of his presidency, in the now-famous Cairo speech, Obama observed that “[America and Islam] overlap, and share common principles—principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

We are left with the grim reality that at the fundamental level America’s policies toward the Muslim world are based on false premises—and hence, are untenable. This reality must be acknowledged widely before alternate policies can be devised.

We live in the era of science that has brought unprecedented security, development, health and prosperity. Yet, we have allowed opinions to dictate debate and policy on an existential threat. The importance of letting science drive policy couldn’t be clearer on the subject of Islamic radicalism.

Friday, April 9, 2010

On Thursday evening, April 8th, the vaunted hero of the American left and the denizens of the "politically correct" intellectual enclaves made his return appearance at Cooper Union in New York City. In a panel discussion entitled, "Secularism, Islam and Democracy: Muslims in Europe and the West", Tariq Ramadan, the formerly "exiled" professor of Islamic Studies at Oxford University took center stage at the forum sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Association of University Professors, PEN American Center, the American Academy of Religion and Slate Magazine. The audience of approximately 600 people consisted of those who call him “slippery,” “double-faced,” “dangerous,” but his left-wing apologists refer to him as “brilliant,” a “bridge-builder,” and a “Muslim Martin Luther.”

Controversy has swirled around Ramadan, for the better part of his adult life. He is the grandson of Hassan al Banna, who in 1928 founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and is the son of Said Ramadan who is credited with bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to Germany where it eventually spread throughout Europe.Born in Switzerland, when his father was exiled from Egypt by Gamal Abdul Nasser, Ramadan studied philosophy, literature and social sciences at the University of Geneva and pursued a Master's degree in philosophy and French literature. He received his PhD in Arabic and Islamic studies. He is best known for his dangerously duplicitous positions on Islamic radicalism. His passive and ostensibly reasoned posture while speaking to Western audiences betrays his bellicose commitment to the furtherance of Sharia law that he reserves exclusively for Muslim only gatherings.

The web site of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy says of Ramadan:

"Ramadan is a self proclaimed Salafi-reformist whose version of reform appears to basically be a modernization of the political system prevalent at the time of the Prophet Mohammed rather than advocacy for individual liberty and the separation of mosque and state. A 'rock star' among the many European Muslims, namely Islamists, Ramadan is considered the most cited individual on Islam in Europe. Ramadan eloquently uses language that supports the precepts of non-violence and involvement in western society, yet he does not distance himself in any way or nearly adequately from the supremacy of political Islam and the concept of the Islamic State. His excuse is that he is speaking "from within Muslims". But this prevents a real understanding of his ideas on political Islam, the Islamic state and Sharia versus constitutional republics and the establishment clause. It prevents a real understanding of his position on the Muslim Brotherhood and thus becomes actual tacit support of the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ramadan has been unacceptably deceptive on issues related to Sharia such as laws against apostasy, proscribed punishments under Islamic law, the continued viability of the Islamic state and the Ummah, one law versus Sharia law, and real equality for women in all settings to name a few. His positions remain essentially in line with the Muslim Brotherhood-which remains against the best interests of Muslims. His access to media portrays a homogeneity to Muslim opinions which is outright false and denies the real diversity in Muslim communities and ideologies."

Ramadan accepted the tenured position of Henry R. Luce Professor of Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame University in February 2004, but that August, U.S. Customs officials denied Ramadan entry into the country under the "ideological exclusion provision" of the Patriot Act. The university filed a petition on Ramadan's behalf but hearing nothing from the government, he resigned from the post in December 2004. Ramadan was later denied other attempts to get visas so he could honor speaking engagements with the ACLU, the American Association of University Professors and the PEN American Center being among the groups wanting to host him and arguing on his behalf in the ensuing legal wars. After a federal judge ordered the government to make a decision on Ramadan's pending visa request, his application was denied in September 2006, with a U.S. consular officer concluding the academic's actions "constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization."The government's evidence was $940 Ramadan gave to two charity groups that the U.S. Treasury Department linked to Hamas in August 2003 On January 20, 2010, the American State Department had decided, in a document signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to lift the ban that prohibited Ramadan (as well as Professor Adam Habib from South Africa) from entering the United States. And now, Ramadan has triumphantly returned to the US for what some call the "Tariq Ramadan American Islamist Victory Tour 2010".

Ramadan was introduced by Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, which litigates cases concerning dissent, discrimination, detention, surveillance and due process. He was counsel to the plaintiffs in American Academy of Religion v Chertoff, the lawsuit that ended the ban on Ramadan. Hailing him as the sacrificial lamb of the Bush administration's anti-Islamic agenda, Jaffer said this evening was dedicated "to creating a safe political space for the exchange of ideas".

The panel was moderated by Jacob Weisberg, the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of The Slate Group, which publishes Slate Magazine and other web sites. Weisberg introduced the other members of the panel, but noted that the evening would focus on the philosophies of Tariq Ramadan and that he'd be asking some hard hitting questions. The other panel members included Dalia Mogahed, a Senior Analyst and Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and the co-author of a book entitled, "Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think", George Packer, a staff writer for The New Yorker and the author of "The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq", Joan Wallach Scott, professor of Social Science at the Institute for Advance Study and the author of the "Politics of the Veil". She is known internationally for writings that theorize gender as an analytic category.

Ramadan took the lectern and thanked the sponsoring groups for championing his free speech rights and then went on to say that while he is sharply critical of American policy vis-a vis Iraq and Afghanistan, he is not anti-Western and feels that Muslims in Europe can maintain a pro-Western lifestyle while closely adhering to their Islamic beliefs. He said that Islamic women were now taking their place in the forefront of those who frame the debate on the dual role of Muslims in a secular European culture and those who remain faithful to Koranic principles.

"Islam is really a Western religion and Muslims in Europe can and should be loyal citizens of the countries in which they live. Many people are scared of the Muslim presence in Europe but we know that we can integrate diversity through secularism, humility, respect and consistency. Muslim women are informing the process and if you look at them you think they're oppressed but when you hear the way they think and speak, they're clearly a driving force in Islam", said Ramadan.

Concerning his thoughts on the Bush administration, Ramadan intoned, "Bush implied that all Muslims were 'others', they were different and somehow dangerous. While I am a vocal opponent of US policy in the Middle East, all I am saying is that I am against the murder of Iraqi civilians and I am waiting for the new administration to be an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am still waiting because I don't see it as of yet in the Obama administration"

Ramadan's detractors view his rhetoric quite differently. "Tariq Ramadan's entry into America needs to be met with open dialogue from the Muslim Community, non-Muslim organizations and the media on the real threat of Political Islam," says M. Zuhdi Jasser, the president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). "It is incumbent on all Americans, especially American Muslims, to engage Ramadan at any opportunity to demonstrate that the US Constitution trumps the construct of the Islamic State." He went on to say, "To give Ramadan an unfettered platform for his dissimulation while also perpetuating his message of victimization is to give him and his clerical colleagues a status which will forever retard real reform within Muslim thought. Real reform comes from those Muslim leaders with the personal strength of character to call for an end to the Islamic state and the separation of mosque and state. Ramadan has not. Rather he is a soft tongued global instrument of political Islam against the bulwark of real freedom and liberty as we know it in the United States."

Pajamas Media columnist and prolific author, Phyllis Chesler stated in a March 25, 2010 article entitled, "Bin Laden Threatens America, NYC Welcomes Tariq Ramadan", "Ramadan is not my problem, I know him for the snake he is. Rather, it would be the sight of so many Americans who’ve glamorized him, who are fooled by him, who have come to worship Death at his feet."

Panelist George Packer of The New Yorker magazine asked Ramadan why he never roundly condemned his grandfather, Hassan al Banna, for his unyielding support and succor of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who spent years in Nazi Germany and advocated the mass extermination of the Jews. Ramadan danced around the question saying that his grandfather was misquoted and that he never advocated a totalitarian or fascist regime but only supported the Mufti in terms of his fierce opposition to the creation of the State of Israel. Packer pressed Ramadan on this point and asked how his grandfather could flagrantly align himself with someone who extolled such a pernicious philosophy of classical anti-Semitism. Ramadan refused to admit that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was anti-Semitic but rather claimed that he was righteous in his position that Palestine should not be colonized by the Jews of Europe or the West.

Charges of anti-Semitism have dogged Ramadan since he penned an article in 2003 entitled, “Critique of the (New) Communalist Intellectuals.” Ramadan’s main argument was that “French Jewish intellectuals” — like Bernard-Henri Lévy, Alain Finkielkraut, Bernard Kouchner, André Glucksmann and Pierre-André Taguieff (in fact not Jewish at all) — who used to be “considered universalist intellectuals” had become knee-jerk defenders of Israel and thus “had relativized the defense of universal principles of equality and justice.” Ramadan was trying to turn the tables on those who accuse Muslims of obsessing about their victimhood by accusing “Jewish intellectuals” of doing precisely that, thinking of just their own tribal concerns, while Ramadan’s pursuit of justice for Palestinians was supposedly part of a universalist project.

On the question of the rampant oppression of women in the Muslim world, panelist Joan Wallach Scott, a Ramadan supporter, asserted that the issue of gender equality "has been used as a veil" to divert attention from the "social inequality" of Muslims in the Western hemisphere. Citing purported discriminatory practices against Muslims in such countries as France, Scott said that "unemployment is higher for Muslims in France than it is for French nationals" and that Muslims are viewed as "inferior" in the West. From a historical perspective she described Muslims as a "colonized people", subject to prejudice in its most banal form.

Refusing to address such pervasive misogynistic practices in the Islamic world as forced marriages, stonings, beatings, immolations and honor murders of women, Scott pointed to what she perceived as the sheer hypocrisy of the Western patriarchy who she claims are trying to interfere with the reproductive rights of American women, but are "suddenly concerned and overly involved in the oppression of Muslim women," She concluded by saying that Muslim women wear head scarves, veils, burqas and hijab on their own volition and not because they are coerced by the religious dictums of Islamic culture. She called gender equality a "political tool" that has nothing to do with protecting the rights of Muslim women.

Ramadan also heaped criticism on Dutch intellectual, feminist activist, writer, and politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who also happens to be a prominent critic of Islam. "Ali believes that Islam is problematic and that one cannot be a Muslim and open to democracy at the same time. She believes that the only way to be a Muslim is to become an ex-Muslim", Ramadan exclaimed. He remained silent on the issue of the religious dogma of Islam that opposes any government that is not ruled by Sharia law or the practice of religious apartheid that is practiced in many Muslim countries.

When questioned about his statements pertaining to homosexuals being anathema in Islamic law and how the Muslim world is being forced to accept homosexuality in order to appear politically correct and more Westernized, Ramadan deftly skirted the question by figuratively tipping his hat to "political correctness" by saying "this is how Muslims perceive the world is viewing them, not how they perceive themselves. You can disagree with someone being gay but we should respect that person and not tell him or her that they are not a Muslim because of this."

The evening concluded with the reading of several pithy questions from audience members that were read aloud by the moderator. It was not at all difficult to see that Ramadan had not fooled everyone as challenging questions were presented to him by the audience and several people commented that in order to understand the real Tariq Ramadan, they should read the books entitled "The Islamist, The Journalist, and the Defense of Liberalism: Who's Afraid of Tariq Ramadan?" by Paul Berman and "Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan" by Caroline Fourest.

Ramadan continues his charade in the next few weeks in such cities as Chicago, Detroit, Washington and Garden Grove, California. May the forces of truth have the temerity to boldly confront this purveyor of mendacity.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Sir, Helen Brown (letter, April 6) points out that the cathedral at Córdoba is inside a vast mosque built centuries earlier, but the mosque was in turn built atop the Visigothic monastery of San Vicente.

However, the demand that Muslims be allowed to pray inside Córdoba cathedral is reasonable, so long as the same rights are granted for Christians to be allowed to pray inside places such as the Umayyad mosque in Damascus, which was built over a Byzantine church and contains a shrine that is said to contain the head of John the Baptist.